Jump to content

Talk:Principality of Arbanon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaming to "Lord of Kruja"?

[edit]

I think it would be better if we totally redesign this article into -lord of Kruja-, because all these alleged "princes" had in fact a much lesser degree of power than suggested in the article, the Principality of Arber is thus a fabrication. --Zoupan (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

If you would take the time to check for the sources, you would have been more useful to the article. Just this and this and this and this with a little google help. If you are interested in the article you can search further on. Aigest (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the article. There is still much to do.--Zoupan (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Please don't misrepresent the sources as the ones you added about Albanian nationalism had to do with the League of Lezhë and the wording was POV.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not criteria for reverting my whole edit. I'm removing the League of Lezhe-refs, adding other sources directly handling the status.--Zoupan (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Zoupan you are misusing sources and you are vandalising the article. If you want to make major changes discuss them first in the talk page. Aigest (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't deleted anything, which sources am i misusing? Where is the vandalism? Please review the article first, and point out your problems, because, honestly, I think you're falsely judging my edits. You reverted the article even though I took care of what Zjarri asked for.--Zoupan (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
@ZjarriRrethues: That was a very good observation about the Albanian nationalism and League of Lezhe. I do AGF but please be so kind provide a quote from the source Zoupan cited which refers to League of Lezhe.
@Zoupan: Thank you for cleaning this article. Both ZjarriRrethues and you are right. The text about Albanian nationalism should be included into the article about League of Lezhe without reverting the whole edit of yours.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case any of you haven't noticed, there is an article in wiki called Albanian nationalism. You can put any discussion about it there, otherwise you go to WP:FORK territory. This article is about the Principality. Historical material pertinent to the topic of article ie "Principality of Arbër" stay here. Ideological, social, essays and other works on nationalism go there, simple as that. Aigest (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can safely say that Aigest has judged my edits without reviewing the article.--Zoupan (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
@Zoupan. I am afraid that this issue is a little more complicated. Both ZjarriRrethues and Aigest brougth very serious accusations against you.
I think that such serious accusations against you should be addressed appropriately. I noticed that although you took care about possible (still to be confirmed by ZjarriRrethues) connection to League of Lezhe, Aigest insisted that you are misusing sources and you are vandalising the article. It think that only if Aigest (or any other user) fails to present valid arguments for his accusations within reasonable period of time (say a week) his most recent edit should be reverted. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points AntiD, I'm awaiting their comments, then the article should (will) be reverted. Their accusations are totally ungrounded, I know, but I'm interested if the blind reverts will stop - or is this another Vojsava-case?--Zoupan (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
There were many OR and POV deductions. That being said since Aigest focused on the parts about nationalism, the parts where you added that this was an autonomous principality under the Byzantine Empire make no sense either as the misinterpreted sources contradict this part of OR/POV too.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abulafia: "Progon and his sons Dhimiter and Gjin, based at Kruja, retained a considerable degree of autonomy", Pipa: "during the second half of the Twelfth Century, had enabled Arbanon to attain a semi-autonomous status", Winnifrith: "From about 1190 to 1216 there was a semi- autonomous principality of Arbanon", Ellis: "Arbanon was autonomous, but loyal to the Byzantine Empire.", Elsie: "the first autonomous Albanian state under Prince Progon". Clear as water. I added that this was an autonomous principality as it in fact was, I will now remove the "autonomous" and "Byzantine" from the infobox as they are unneeded, but the Status-section will nevertheless stay and be expanded. No misinterpretations - No more chances of revert, I understand? --Zoupan 17:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

(unindent)If you didn't half-quote the sources and knew that there was no Byzantine Empire after the fourth crusade in 1204, you'd realize that none of them refer to the Byzantine Empire but to relations with successor states like the despotate of Epirus.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the half-quotes to emphasize on autonomous, as it was, under many states, including the Byzantine Empire, obviously, and Epirus, Nicaea, Zeta and Serbia (Your comment was "the parts where you added that this was an autonomous principality under the Byzantine Empire make no sense either as the misinterpreted sources contradict this part of OR/POV too"). Just read the status section: "Before 1204, Arbanon was an autonomous principality of the Byzantine Empire.";"After 1204, the Albanians naturally followed the Despotate of Epirus, the successor of the Byzantine Empire." etc. --Zoupan 18:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Some questions

[edit]

The string "Principality of Arbër" gives no real hit on Gbooks, thus it is not the most suitable name. "Principality of Arbanon" is used in an English Akademia e Shkencave e RPS të Shqipërisë work (1985), however, "Principata e Arbërit" is used in an Albanian work (1991). "Principality of Arberia" is used in a Frashëri translation (1964). What is the most used name in Albanian? Otherwise maybe "Arberia (1190-1255)"/"Arbanon (1190-1255)"? Is the File:Principality of Arbër (11th-12th century AD).png-map reliable? What year does the border correspond to? Is the File:Flag of the Principality of Arber.JPG-flag reliable? Is there really any source describing a "flag of Arberia" (1190-1255)? The "Arber-flag" reminds of the Pontic Greek Eagle.--Zoupan 09:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Good point for the flag. It was deleted at Commons and description on en.wiki says "probably a heraldic symbol, from the period of the Principality of Arbanon (ca. 1190)". Probably, from period of the Principality. It does not say "this was a flag of the Principality".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gëziq eagle emblem.svg claims to be the "emblem of Arbanon". Is there any English sources to back this up?--Zoupan 16:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Coat of Arms

[edit]
Alleged coat of arms.

I wonder what makes the specific coat of arms historically valid and especially what makes sites like pashtriku and albadreams reliable sources for use in wikipedia per correspodent description in commons.Alexikoua (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found Jaho Brahaj. "Heraldry" (PDF). The heraldic emblem of the Arbër State was discovered in Gëziq (Mirditë) and dates from the 12th century. which, again, does not look the least reliable.--Zoupan 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
I am prepared to believe that a relief of this sort was found there, the problem is proving that this was used anything like a heraldic emblem of this particular principality. The eagle was a common motif in Byzantine art, but that does not mean that it had anything to do with heraldry in any western sense, especially since a) heraldry began to be developed in the West in the 12th-13th centuries, and b) Byzantine "heraldry", which one would expect a 12th-century Balkan principality to follow, usually used monograms or religious motifs rather than western-style images, and the notion of a "state heraldry" was completely alien. Unfortunately, it appears that this is simply an emblem picked up by modern nationalist-minded historiography and retroactively cast into the role of a "state emblem". Constantine ✍ 14:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Constantine--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This coat of arms is speculatively attributed to the Progoni family. However, it has been scientifically rebutted by Koço Zheku, a foremost expert in medieval artifacts, whose findings were published in the scientific journal "Iliria", in 1984. Ippen himself, the person who discovered the coat of arms engraving, makes no mention of Arbanon in his work. Kj1595 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

According to Robert Elsie (19 March 2010). Historical Dictionary of Albania. Scarecrow Press. pp. 54, 371. ISBN 978-0-8108-7380-3., Arbanon was centred at Kruja, and the Albanian coast had no noticeable Albanian communities throughout the Middle Ages. According to Steven G. Ellis; Lud'a Klusáková (2007). Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities. Edizioni Plus. p. 133. ISBN 978-88-8492-466-7., Arbanon was a small territory in the 11th and 12th centuries, stretching from rivers Devoll to Shkumbi. The map used in the article, claiming to show 11th and 12th c. history, shows Arbanon with a coastline stretching from south of Alessio to the north of Durazzo. This area would in fact have been part of Byzantine Dyrrhachium until at least 1204. --Zoupan 17:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

I requested that File:Principality of Arbër (11th-12th century AD).png be moved to File:Map of the Principality of Arbanon.png and have commented on the talk page.--Zoupan 17:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

According to Kristaq Prifti,the map's borders depict Arbanon at it's greatest extent.And just because the Albanian coast had alegeldy no "noticeable Albanian communities throught the Middle ages" does not mean they didn't rule there.The map's borders are clearly expressed here.

Anamali, Skënder and Prifti, Kristaq. Historia e popullit shqiptar në katër vëllime. Botimet Toena, 2002, ISBN 9992716223 p. 197-198 Euripides ψ (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you access to that source please explain what is said, instead of simply copying the citation. The map should not be used until concensus to use it. It was concluded that the map is unreliable.--Zoupan 17:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]

Emblem

[edit]

http://www.mhk.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Stema-e-Principat%C3%ABs-s%C3%AB-Arbrit-datuar-n%C3%AB-vitin-1215-G%C3%ABziq-Coat-of-arms-Principality-of-Arb%C3%ABr-dates-back-to-the-year-1215-G%C3%ABziq1.jpg http://www.mhk.gov.al/?portfolio=emblem-of-principality-of-arber-1215 http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Shqiperi.htm

Emblem is not fake, it's been found carved in stone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.44.193 (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding the serbian name

[edit]

There is no point in adding the serbian name of Arbanon. If so we would have to add the german, french names and so on. There were no serbs, the albanian and greek names are enough. Please stop the serbian nationalists invading everything they don't like. - Thank you - TheeDardanian —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian (Slavic) name for the polity, Raban, is attested during its existence (from primary sources). Arbanon's dependence on Serbia is enough for its inclusion. There were plenty of Slavs in Albania at the time though. There is no invasion going on.--Zoupan 00:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
The native name belongs first. I don't see the need for the serbian name here. If so, we'd have to add latin aswell and many many other languages. ;) Shall we add the albanian name first in serbian related articles of this period? Say hello to administrators from me btw;) Theedardanian (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a contemporary Latin source naming the polity, then add this Latin variant. No other languages than those present (plus Latin) are realistic for the intro, and I do not have to explain why. Read the article. Although a neologism, I've now moved Albanian to primary lang, although an annotation clarifying the names might be needed. Please stop edit-warring.--Zoupan 12:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
Did you add the albanian version in serbian principalities of the same period? If not, do that for the same reasons you added the serbian one here. Theedardanian (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are no same reasons, as already explained.--Zoupan 20:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Ajdebre.[reply]
The albanian version should be added there for the exact same reasons you added the serbian version here. Otherwise, it's double-standards...once again. Theedardanian (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no historically documented "albanian" presence in areas of the medieval Serbian principalities, however there is a clear and documented Slavic/Serbian presence in this autonomous "albanian" region. Critikal1 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution in 1255?

[edit]

It has gained some controversy in the article recently so: can anyone find a reliable source stating that the Principaly of Arbanon was dissolved in 1255? The date "1255" does not appear in the two sources provided (Early Albania: A Reader of Historical Texts, 11th-17th and The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 5, C.1198-c.1300). Alcaios (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done. Alcaios (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From Macrides (2007):
Ochrid was one of Michael II’s possessions in 1246: §46. Although it is not mentioned among the places ceded by Michael in the agreement of 1252 (§49.34, 35), it is listed here as part of the emperor John’s inspection tour of his newly acquired territory. As Ochrid is mentioned along with Deavolis and Kastoria, both of which went over to the emperor as a result of Petraliphas’ desertion to him (see §49.27), it may be that Ochrid was also under Petraliphas’ control or, more likely, Goulamos’ (see §49.30), and was ceded to the emperor by negotiation with these men but not with Michael II. p. 282
Albanon, the mountainous region on the Via Egnatia to the east of Dyrrachion and west of Lake Ochrid, is mentioned above (§14) as part of the area under Theodore Komnenos Doukas by 1217. Asan refers to his control of Albanon both in his inscription commemorating his victory in the church of the Forty Martyrs, Trnovo, and in his trade agreement with Dubrovnik (1230) p. 204
Albanon, the mountainous area between Lake Ochrid and Dyrrachion, had been under Theodore Komnenos’ control (§14) and then Asan’s in 1230 (§25). It must have reverted to the control of the Komneno-Doukai after Asan’s death p. 280
The usual date given for the treaty negotiated at Regina, ‘shortly before 6 August 1256. In his letter Theodore lists the places which constitute the boundaries of the agreement: Philippopolis in the east, Sofia, Skopje and Albanon to the west. p. 305
Constantine Chabaron he put in command of Albanon, while appointing me praitor [George Akropolites] p.319
When I arrived there an altogether terrible report came to my ears. The report was that Constantine Chabaron,1 who had received the governorship of Albanon from the emperor, was won over to the side of the despot Michael through the contrivances of Michael’s wife’s sister, Maria. [..] I chose to go to Albanon for the sake of correcting the situation in the area and to learn what the epi tes basilikes trapezes had done. When I arrived, I led away the epi tes trapezes from Albanon to the best of my strength. For the Albanian people had just put the final touches on the revolt; they had all gone over to the renegade despot Michael. p.323-24
The series of events is: By 1217, Arbanon paid taxes/gave men-in-arms to Theodore Doukas (Epiros) under some form of autonomy, in 1230 Asen II of Bulgaria acquired those vassal rights until 1246. In 1246-1252, the situation was rather ambiguous and in that year Golem broke off entirely with Michael II Komnenos Doukas and went over to Theodore II Laskaris (to his father actually and later to him). In 1254-56, a Bulgarian campaign disrupted the status quo. After that, the Byzantines appoint a direct governor for the area - who defects and the Rebellion of Arbanon begins, which is defeated in 1257.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

I don't think that any of the uploaded maps is factual. A new map has to be created. What we know is that Dhimitër Progoni claimed to be the princeps Arbanorum in the area between Shkodra, Prizren, Durrës, Ohrid. At its largest extent the principality of Arbër, controlled the area between the Drin river valley, the Shkumbin river valley, the Black Drin down to the west of Ohrid. The area north of the Drin had been captured in 1198 by Nemanja - and later by the Bulgarian Empire - who in primary sources appears to have gained Pult ot Rabna (from Arbanon). After 1216, we don't know what constituted Arbanon in its phase of autonomy. We need a map that shows the only two things about which there are primary sources and modern bibliography: 1) the area which Dh. Progoni claimed for himself 2)the largest extent of the area he controlled (before 1213). @N.Hoxha: could you take a look? --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it up and see what I can do. N.Hoxha (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I finally took the time to finish the map, you can find it over here:[1] Ahmet Q. (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmet Q.: It's an excellent map. I really like the high resolution and the marking of river names.--Maleschreiber (talk)
What makes the map which is also confirmed by Osswald [[2]] non factual?Alexikoua (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work @Ahmet Q.:, a lot of thanks to you! Lorik17 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Arbanon&oldid=1249732901"